Message-ID: <b0ea6652-d935-420a-ba73-5e9af824176c@vondra.me>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2026 00:29:03 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: eliminate xl_heap_visible to reduce WAL (and eventually set VM
 on-access)
To: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Kirill Reshke
 <reshkekirill@gmail.com>, Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>,
 Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>, Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou@gmail.com>,
 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
 Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
References: 
 <CAAKRu_Z8Ry_ynNBPAzs_Ry3MQi9NaBgt1ccLgwRsDbxWpocaBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKRu_ZbOp52rnkjf63h5mf94raEKBH7AAbz6QTx-xdH9yLfmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKRu_b8m+iuupm4ZX+2_V5Xj5u4jCTrU=Tv=epg6p4H2SMkFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALdSSPh9hVXNiPwdntWqbMzu5upKy0jBDDe7Un0_Nf2A54R2VQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKRu_a6Cd7JnxhY4A=b_Paxc3UDUDOPeqV3GbzMh=R2KkD-uQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <jlsvov4o5xswxjvjhvuchz6y55ncvoc457grvxct7cub5gcxuj@4e2toesujnpr>
 <CAAKRu_bsHbvt+VqbjHXsdphKf8fqwBEutRhH3fmo+qUVe=yBKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKRu_ZhHtEaucO--SdYrCjq0zgqk_LPztUD+-QS74A2htXgKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKRu_Zj8G4T=HN3QSY7iQvkKSQk-k1fq+eJkjCBNqoSg63z+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKRu_bgP-DMZs=D2j2N0+U9+uWU5cVagw-yZLOuhYbWj_KwnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <itvgqc6vncbjsjfmrptfvkkeg5vqzhalaguya2z77t6c6ctpc3@wsdrgbn4bxaa>
 <CAAKRu_aWMyGB=zg5W7+RUtor6TqsiOwHXSL7Dg4TUUiTSzzcpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2be31f17-5405-4de9-8d73-90ebc322f7d8@vondra.me>
 <CAAKRu_Ypa7-JGVR+fstDxU5Cfitk_rf5ijdaqwtoPkztursufA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAKRu_Ypa7-JGVR+fstDxU5Cfitk_rf5ijdaqwtoPkztursufA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/b0ea6652-d935-420a-ba73-5e9af824176c%40vondra.me>
Precedence: bulk

On 3/25/26 19:54, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 2:02 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me> wrote:
>>
>> 0002
>>
>> - Don't we usually keep "flags" as the last parameter? It seems a bit
>> weird that it's added in between relation and snapshot.
> 
> In an earlier review, Andres said he disliked using flags as the last
> parameter for index_beginscan() because its current last two
> parameters are integers (nkeys and norderbys), which could be
> confusing. Personally, I think you have to look at the function
> signature before just randomly passing stuff, and so it shouldn't
> matter -- but I didn't care enough to argue. If you agree with me that
> they should be last, then it's two against one and I'll change it back
> :) I can keep the callsite comments naming the flags parameter.
> 

Who am I to argue with Andres? ;-) I'm kinda used to flags being the
last argument, but it's not something I'm particularly attached to.

>> - Do we really want to pass two sets of flags to table_beginscan_common?
>>  I realize it's done to ensure "users" don't use internal flags, but
>> then maybe it'd be better to do that check in the places calling the
>> _common? Someone adding a new caller can break this in various ways
>> anyway, e.g. by setting bits in the internal flags, no?
> 
> Yes, callers of table_beginscan_common() could pass flags they
> shouldn't in internal_flags. But I was mostly trying to prevent the
> case where a user picks a flag that overlaps with an internal flag,
> conditionally passes it as a user flag, and then when they test for it
> in their AM-specific code, they aren't actually checking if their own
> flag is set.
> 

Ah, so we expect people to invent their "own" flags, outside what's in
ScanOptions? Or do I misunderstand how it works? (I admit not reading
the whole massive thread, as I was only interested in using the flags in
my own patch.)

> Anyway, it's not hard to move:
>     Assert((flags & SO_INTERNAL_FLAGS) == 0);
> into the table_beginscan_common() callers and then pass the internal
> flags the caller wants to pass + the user specified flags to
> table_beginscan_common(). And I think that fixes what you are talking
> about?
> 

Right. I wouldn't say it "fixes" it, because it wasn't a bug. But it
does ensure the two sets do not "overlap", which I assume should never
happen.

>> If we want to have these checks, should we be more thorough? Should we
>> check the internal flags only set internal flags?
> 
> That's easy enough too.
> Assert((internal_flags & ~SO_INTERNAL_FLAGS) == 0); I think does the trick.
> 
> I think this would largely be the same as having
> table_beginscan_common() callers validate that the user-passed flags
> are not internal and then OR them together with the internal flags
> they want to pass to table_beginscan_common().
> 
> I'm trying to think of cases where the two approaches would differ so
> I can decide which to do.
> 

OK


-- 
Tomas Vondra